http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/list/1.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
The correct way to calculate one's actual KO percentage is to divide your total number of KOs into your total number of fights (wins, losses, and draws).

]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22778.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22778.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22790.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22790.page GMT That's not how it works.

The correct KO ratio takes into consideration one's losses and draws. This new percentage yields an accurate representation of what one's knockout percentage is against all opponents in all of our fights.

Hence, if you lose a fight, that counts against your KO percentage because you didn't score a KO.

It makes sense too because this percentage captures the full picture. This is why this KO percentage is used in the sport of boxing. ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22794.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22794.page GMT
one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22797.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22797.page GMT
one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?[/quote]

I actually learned this following the sport of boxing. However, I will give some credit to some of the celebrities I hang out with. ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22798.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22798.page GMT
one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?[/quote]

However, I will give some credit to some of the celebrities I hang out with. [/quote]

hey buddy!

yeah...celebri- T

im Christian Bale- i starred in American Psycho AND The Dark Knight.]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22799.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22799.page GMT
yeah...celebri- T

im Jenna Jameson- i starred in All American Superstars AND Where the Boys Aren't 16: Dark Angels . ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22801.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22801.page GMT
Red Viper 71%

Chrille 72%

Catfish 64%

Reaper 67%

Nigel Benn 81%

Black Bear 73%

Fernando Vargas 67%

USA 73%

Monkey Tail 57%

The Sniper 54%

So viper isnt the ko king...its Nigel Benn!!

]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22805.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22805.page GMT
When you KO someone, you win...therefor your only take into account your wins...not losses and draws.... ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22808.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22808.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22809.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22809.page GMT
hey buddy!

yeah...celebri- T

im Christian Bale- i starred in American Psycho AND The Dark Knight.[/quote]




[quote=Jenna Jameson]hey sweety!

yeah...celebri- T

im Jenna Jameson- i starred in All American Superstars AND Where the Boys Aren't 16: Dark Angels . [/quote]


WTF... What is this?! ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22811.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22811.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22815.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22815.page GMT
When you KO someone, you win...therefor your only take into account your wins...not losses and draws.... [/quote]
How is it ridiculous? It's an accurate representation because it takes every fight into consideration. It's the way the professional ranks do it.

The way you guys have been doing it is one's KO Percentage in Total Victories and that's not really as impressive as the overall picture, IMO.

You're a student of the game, aren't you Tyrant? ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22820.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22820.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22822.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22822.page GMT The total number of fights doesn't make a difference. The concept is still the same.

In fact, it makes even more sense to use this calculation here because we do have some people that have thousands of fights. This means that typically someone with that many fights will be someone that is very experienced/skilled. Having a high percentage of KOs in comparison to total wins can be deceiving because although that person may win more of their fights by KO, they may also have a high KO loss percentage or it could reflect how poor of a boxer that person is.

For example, would you really want to give this person props?

John Smith OB Record

5000 wins
4900 KOs
8000 losses
10 draws

This person yields a 98% KO rate per the current calculation system.

Per my proposed system this person's actual KO percentage is 38%

Now isn't it evident which calculation reflects the person's overall caliber as a fighter?

This person's record merely reflects that [b]if and when he wins[/b], it's usually by KO. However, this in no way captures the individual's overall skill, and that is my overall point. In summary, the current calculation system is quite flawed.




]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22828.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22828.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22829.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22829.page GMT The total number of fights doesn't make a difference. The concept is still the same.

In fact, it makes even more sense to use this calculation here because we do have some people that have thousands of fights. This means that typically someone with that many fights will be someone that is very experienced/skilled. Having a high percentage of KOs in comparison to total wins can be deceiving because although that person may win more of their fights by KO, they may also have a high KO loss percentage or it could reflect how poor of a boxer that person is.

For example, would you really want to give this person props?

John Smith OB Record

5000 wins
4900 KOs
8000 losses
10 draws

This person yields a 98% KO rate per the current calculation system.

Per my proposed system this person's actual KO percentage is 38%

Now isn't it evident which calculation reflects the person's overall caliber as a fighter?

This person's record merely reflects that [b]if and when he wins[/b], it's usually by KO. However, this in no way captures the individual's overall skill, and that is my overall point. In summary, the current calculation system is quite flawed.


Very good point. But how does that capture a persons overall skill. KO % means skill level? Maybe the player has the mindset, win lose or draw somebodies getting KO'ed.

Now don't you flip flop on your previous statement.




[/quote]]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22831.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22831.page GMT
The correct way to calculate one's actual KO percentage is to divide your total number of KOs into your total number of fights (wins, losses, and draws).

[/quote]

He's correct. Wasn't sure myself so I checked, and he's right.]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22832.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22832.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22835.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22835.page GMT California Kid California 423W 402L 423Ko's
edder1234 258W 402L 252Ko's
Sdk-eddie 75W 141L 75ko's
Sdk-eddie54 87w 124L 86ko's
sdk_eddie 68W 114L 65Ko's
Chaoscrew-eddie 292W 343L 288ko's
BXA-eddie 226W 245L 224ko's
Moo-eddie-Moo 59W 75L 59ko's
eddiester 46W 131L 46Ko's

just stating the facts. your guys have bad records.. so? you would think after over 9000 fights you would have the hang of it by now? all those alts combined are 8946 fights. those are only the edder ones.

]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22836.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22836.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22837.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22837.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22838.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22838.page GMT
Our way, it shows how quick you are to win a match (by [T]KO). Obama is correct in saying that it doesn't show who the better fighter is but that is the style of the game, you never know. A win-lose ratio would be a much better method of finding out who is a better fighter, however it can still be inaccurate.

So I vote to keep the KO system we have ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22841.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22841.page GMT
But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22842.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22842.page GMT
Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22850.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22850.page GMT
Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.[/quote]


Amen ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22854.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22854.page GMT
Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.[/quote]


Amen [/quote]

A lady..!!


]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22855.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22855.page GMT
But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.[/quote]

Well you aren't a student of the game if you still don't get it. Nor are you a student of the game if you deny the Sweet Science's method.

Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport. I will continue to vehemently contend that the current method is one-dimensional, an inaccurate reflection of reality. However, to each their own, even when their own is a flawed and limited perspective. ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22856.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22856.page GMT
Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport. [/quote]

]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22859.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22859.page GMT
But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.[/quote]

Well you aren't a student of the game if you still don't get it. Nor are you a student of the game if you deny the Sweet Science's method.

Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport. I will continue to vehemently contend that the current method is one-dimensional, an inaccurate reflection of reality. However, to each their own, even when their own is a flawed and limited perspective. [/quote]

I see, someone doesn't agree with you so they are automatically some kind of loser, too young to have an opinion which matters or they don't understand. That just shows how ignorant you are dude !

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe the other people could be wrong ?]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22860.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22860.page GMT
I don't need to waste my time with that.]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22861.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22861.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22866.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22866.page GMT
The correct way to calculate one's actual KO percentage is to divide your total number of KOs into your total number of fights (wins, losses, and draws).

[/quote]

the alt's right. that son of a bitch]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22867.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22867.page GMT http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22868.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22868.page GMT ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22869.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22869.page GMT [/quote]
"i miss you baby" xD
]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22871.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22871.page GMT !]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22878.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22878.page GMT ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22879.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22879.page GMT
I don't need to waste my time with that.[/quote]
It was the best way for me at the time to get my point across to you Ty. It's me Salvador, bro. I couldn't remember my forum password info so I created this name under the ID that I've been under since I came back two weeks ago. Good to see you again. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22883.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22883.page GMT
Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.[/quote]


Amen [/quote]

A lady..!!


[/quote]



]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22904.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22904.page GMT
I don't need to waste my time with that.[/quote]
It was the best way for me at the time to get my point across to you Ty. It's me Salvador, bro. I couldn't remember my forum password info so I created this name under the ID that I've been under since I came back two weeks ago. Good to see you again. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. [/quote]
Had a feeling it was you. Recognized your writing style . Welcome back ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22911.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22911.page GMT
I don't need to waste my time with that.[/quote]
It was the best way for me at the time to get my point across to you Ty. It's me Salvador, bro. I couldn't remember my forum password info so I created this name under the ID that I've been under since I came back two weeks ago. Good to see you again. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. [/quote]
Had a feeling it was you. Recognized your writing style . Welcome back [/quote]
Thanks.

How have you been? You seem to be pretty busy these days. ]]> http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22920.page http://localhost:8080/jforum/posts/preList/2234/22920.page GMT